Allowed

Kunjachan v. the Changanassery Municipality, Represented by Its Secretary

Kerala HC1 Dec 2012WP(C)/25419/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the delay in disbursing pensionary benefits to a retired contingent employee despite a prior sanction order. The Court held that fund shortages cannot justify such delays and directed the Municipality to release the benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to disburse pensionary benefits within three months.

Kunjachan Vs the Changanassery Municipality… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 25419 of 2012 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.O. KUNJACHAN, S/O.OUSEPH,, AGED 61 YEARS KOTTAKAD, THRIKODITHANAM PO CHANGANASSERY TALUK PIN- 686 505.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE CHANGANASSERY MUNICIPALITY,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶12

MUNICIPAL OFFICE CHANGANASSERY - 686 102.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDITS,

¶14

MUNICPAL AUDIT, MUNICIPAL OFFICE

¶15

CHANGANASSERY - 686102.

¶16

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

¶17

SRI.S.NANDAGOPAL BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.M.J.RAJASREE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

MNS

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXHIBIT-P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 25-8-2011

¶23

EXHIBIT-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 22-9-2012

¶24

EXHIBIT-P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FIXING THE PAY AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS DATED 23-11-2011

¶25

EXHIBIT-P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18-9-2012.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶27

//TRUE COPY//

¶28

P.A TO JUDGE

¶29

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶30

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 25419 of 2012

¶32

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner, who was working as a contingent employee in the first respondent Municipality, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2011. It is stated that the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner have been sanctioned as per Ext. P3 order passed by the first respondent, but the disbursement is still to be effected, despite the lapse of more than one year and hence is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶35

Heard the learned standing counsel for the Municipality as well as the learned Government Pleader for the second respondent.

¶36

The learned counsel for the Municipality submits on instructions that there is no dispute with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner to have the retirement benefits sanctioned as per Ext. P3 and that delay is only because of

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 25419 of 2012 : 2 :

¶38

paucity of funds and such other adverse circumstances. The learned counsel also submits that earnest efforts are being taken to disburse the pensionary benefits to all the retired hands including the petitioner and that to stream line the steps in this regard, some breathing time is required.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the petitioner was occupying only the lowest step in the ladder as to hierarchy of posts and is made to suffer quite a lot in view of the inordinate delay. With reference to Ext. P4 representation preferred by the petitioner, the learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is passing though a

¶40

bad phase, especially in view of paucity of funds to meet the treatment expenses of his wife, who is allegedly suffering from cardiac ailments.

¶41

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the lack of funds cannot be a reason to deny or delay the disbursement of pensionary benefits. In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondents to

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 25419 of 2012

¶43

: 3 :

¶44

disburse the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner, based on Ext. P3 sanction order, at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶46

sd/-

¶47

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶48

kmd

¶49

/True copy/

¶50

P.A. to Judge

Kunjachan v. the Changanassery Municipality, Represented by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjachan v. the Changanassery Municipality, Represented by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Azeez Vs Sudevan.v.D.

R.Murali Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

V.Anilal Vs the Kollam Corporation

Lonan Ouseph Vs Corporation of Kochi

S.Sheeladevi Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Aleykutty Vs the District Educational Officer, Malappuram